AsGryffynn said:
No, there's no incentive to fill up a hard drive... Because you know, you'd only have one... I save my games on external HDDs and then use them like game cartridges. Really, as far as I know that was the very definition of 2 on 1. As far as I know if you want a Skyrim on PC and PS4, you have to buy two copies. Streaming doesn't compare to actually running the bloody game. You obtain two games and it costs one. Half the price. We are not discussing their financial reasons, only why people might prefer it (at this point, if it's an exclusive with Play Anywhere, it's a no brainer unless your internet connection's slow or your PC cannot run it anyways). The Xbox 360. NPD alone tells us this console has not stopped outperforming it's very successful predecessor. It's been doing this since it was released. It literally makes no sense whatsoever that more people buy an Xbox One yet they are playing less exclusives than the 360. Hence why I insist the digital attach rates must be higher. Make sense of the contrast between higher console sales and less disc sales and you'll realize either a lot of people bought their Xbox One for aesthetic purposes or they are buying these games digitally. There literally was no other reason. |
I see, so your use define a rule that everybody uses?
Nope, 2 in 1 would be buying Halo 5 and getting Halo 4 for free. Or when I buy a CD with music I should count 10 in 1 for the various ways I can transform that file and listen to it? You may say there is value in buying in one place and using in other, but that doesn't suddenly make it half the price. Because most wouldn't buy it twice just to play in two different system, even more when we see how bad the windows store sales were to suppose people were buying it to play on PC and X1. And of course streaming isn't the same as local run (yet people were all over the cloud right?) but if you want to say the price is less because you can play on your PC then I can say the price is 1/4 because I can stream to PSTV, PSVita and shareplay with a friend that doesn't have it (besides using in two accounts) well and we can't forget the share between PS4 and PS4Pro. Or even better if I buy it in physical media I can play in 10+ different PS4 I can then say the price was 1/10? Nope. the price stay the same, your convenience can increase or diminish and as such the value you infer to the product, but the price stayed the same.
NPD show X1 is outperforming the first years of X360 (which weren't that high). And since a lot of people was saying how UHD would make X1S sell more than PS4, why wouldn't people buy X1 for other reasons than playing games? And it's pure conjecture to say "it's selling more HW, but physical sales have dropped, so it's obvious the digital is not only making it sell equal but more than the previous interactions".
Halo3 launched on a 10-15M userbase and sold more than Halo 4 on a much much bigger userbase, so why would the userbase increase so much and people buy less 1st party?
Have you guessed for a second that people may be buying more for the 3rd party games than 1st party? A lot done that on PS3, you could see how few first party titles were in the top selling.
Until anyone have any concrete info to dismiss EA 20% evidence saying X1 have 50/70% digital attach ratio (but only for 1st party, I don't know why they would only buy 1st party, but that is your point) is wishfull thinking.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







